ZILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT MANDSAUR Vs. SHANKARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the appellate order passed by Board of Revenue, on 22.8.1997 in an appeal, preferred by petitioner under Section 77 (2) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act).

(2.) Brief facts, material for deciding the said petition, are mentioned hereinbelow. Respondent No.1 was working with the petitioners' Bank on the post of Samiti Sewak. On account of certain alleged irregularities and illegalities committed by this employee, after holding a departmental enquiry, his services were terminated by an order dated 1.5.1981. Respondent No.1 was .also prosecuted for commission of certain criminal offences by a Criminal Court of J.M.F.C. Sitamau. However, he was exonerated of the criminal charge levelled against him by giving benefit of doubt. On pronouncement of the judgment of acquittal in his favour he requested the petitioners to take him back in service. The petitioners did not oblige the respondent employee mainly on the ground that pursuant to the departmental enquiry held against him, in which charges were found to have been proved, his services stood terminated in the year 1981 itself, whereas the employee never challenged the order of termination by raising a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act. According to them acquittal of respondent employee of a criminal charge would not entitle him to be taken back in service a the order of termination passed by petitioners, pursuant to the findings recorded by departmental enquiry, would still come in his way for giving the said benefit to him.

(3.) On account of this attitude of the petitioners, respondent No. 1 raised a dispute before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies by filing an application under Section 55 (2) of the Act. In this application he challenged not only the order of termination passed against him in the year 1981, but also the indifferent attitude of the petitioner for not taking him back in service after his acquittal in the Criminal Court. Notice of the said application was issued to the petitioners. Petitioners contested the same and submitted that the order of termination of the petitioner passed in the year 1981 cannot be subject-matter of challenge at a belated stage as respondent employee did not take any action against the termination order, instead preferred to wait until an order of acquittal was passed in his favour.